Rolf Kiaer of Helios Gallery has very kindly examined the Cypriot jug over the weekend and I am publishing his professional opinion below.

You will see that he concludes that the jug is in considerably worse condition than your COA suggested.

In the light of his opinion, I now ask you - for the final time - if you will PLEASE give me a full refund of $500 as per your "unconditional" guarantee.

I have uploaded 3 pics of the Cypriot jug for the Group's benefit.

Cheers,

Stephen Churley

Rolf's opinion:

"Following your request I have conducted a visual examination of the pot which you sent to me and the following comments constitute my professional opinion to the best of my ability based on a visual inspection only in the absence of any intrusive or protracted examination.

The pot is a small jug with a single vertical handle, long neck and widening bulbous body. The surface is burnished and incised with linear decoration. I believe that the pot complies with an attribution to the Cypriot Early Bronze Age and I do not suspect its authenticity if determined to be of this period and culture.

The majority of the outisde of the pot is covered in a fine coating of "over-painting" i.e. a pigment applied by a restorer in order to mask damage or give the surface an even colouration throughout. This paint is not translucent and therefore the underlying fabric can not be inspected without its removal and this severely limits my ability to inspect it accurately.

I believe that the rim, handle and neck of the pot are extensively restored (reconsructed with non-ancient materials), the extent is unclear without removing the over-painting but I believe it exceeds half of the possible original material.

The body of the pot is covered by quite extensive over-painting and therefore it is only possible to inspect the underlying fabric where it is exposed. In the exposed areas I could not detect any restoration though this should not be construed as an opinion on the areas which are unexamined (see below). I believe the over-painting conceals considerable surface damage/erosion on the body and the presence of Plaster of Paris would indicate that there may be some reconstruction or restoration although I'm unable to confirm this. Much of the white infill in the incised linear decoration is Plaster of Paris also. Overlaps and alterations in the plaster and over-painting indicate that the appearance of the pot was altered on at least two separate occasions, it is not possible to indicate a date for this but the pigment used in the over-painting appears to be synthetic and therefore of relatively modern manufacture. Surface irregularities to the upper parts of the shoulder and to the left profile of the body (if viewing the pot with the handle to the rear) indicate but do not confirm the likelihood of restoration but this can not be confirmed without the removal of the over-painting.

Based on my visual inspection I would describe the pot as being "restored on the rim, neck and handle, and with extensive re-painting and surface damage as well as possible restoration on the body". A fuller examination would be time-consuming and costly, and I would therefore advise against this action unless no alternative solution can be found."

For some strange reason I have received no postings regarding the subject item.

Stephen Chruley is partly correct in what I have seen.

The jug has been restored as stated in my CoA. However, I hold that the jug was altered by his application of acetone and is not in the same condition as when it was shipped to him. I also believe he has an ulterior motive in demanding a refund.

When the jug was delivered to him he advised me in an email ......"The piece arrived today and I am very pleased with it. I have been wanting one of these for some time and they don't often appear on the market. Although the handle has been re-attached and there is some restoration to the rim, I think it's a pretty good example for the price. The burnished red colour is lovely.

And there were no Customs charges or VAT!

Thanks again and best wishes."

I hold that Mr. Churley found a jug in better condition that he wanted more then the one in which he expressed so much pleasure and now wants a refund. I will not give him one. And, the jug was in "extremely good condition."

I made no claims that the CoA referred solely to the authenticity and not to condition. I did state that the jug had been restored.

Mr. Chruley is correct in that condition cannot be dissociated from authenticity and that is the reason that both are addressed in my CoA's.